On Wed 10/Aug/2022 06:14:04 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 2:01 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
Because there are more ways for a forwarder to change a message than you
or I can describe.
That critic applies to my draft, not to unmunging in general. The only
change we care about here is the From: field. While there are many ways
to munge it, there is a simple way to restore it:
IF message is dmarc=pass AND From: domain belongs to $MAILING_LIST_SET
IF Author: is set
RENAME From: Munged-From:
COPY Author: From:
Et voilà!
This only works when that second "if" is true. Of all the emails in this
particular thread, only yours have it set.
So now, perhaps a hyperbolic question, but: If we were to adopt and publish
draft-crocker-dmarc-author, what's the likelihood that we could get all
MUAs to start adding it?
Dave's Email Author Header Field is now RFC 9057. It says that Author: can be
added by the MUA or by the mediator. It doesn't say that the rMDA can use it
to unmunge From:.
This list saves From: in X-Original-From:. It'd cost nothing to switch to
Author: instead. The arc list, however, saves it by appending to Reply-To:.
The point is to agree on a field name. Author: seems the most promising one.
Now, everybody complains about how From: munging ruined their habits. Yet, the
minimal effort required to restore it is deemed out of the question. It sound
like a tantrum, an excuse to hold that DMARC ruined the MHS and MUST NOT be used.
And then, what's the likelihood that it will remain pristine in the future?
There is only one way to know.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
